Gothamite

There has been no legitimate talk whatsoever of the Brewers going back. They were always more of an NL city, they've established far more of a rivalry with the other NL Central teams than they ever did with the AL teams, and no way would they want to. Don't believe every article by some blogger that give the reason "they were in the AL so they should go back" as a legitimate source of what's gonna happen. Nobody who has at least some grasp of the reality of what this may bring believe the Brewers are going back into the American League. Beat me to it. The Brewers love being in the NL. Milwaukee loves them being in the NL. Any talk of the Brewers "having never been very comfortable in the NL Central" is mere projection on a blogger's part.

Yeah, I like the ring as well, but that might be a little over the top. Hope he's leaving room for the next one.

I'm still it buying it. Sure, there may be a couple. But in any meaningful number? I doubt it.

Not buying this. Not in any significant number. I don't think that ad is too far off. What many of us would (perhaps unfairly) consider to be a "hard core liberal" might detest professional sports in general, or at the very least, consider ice hockey (in most of America) to be a sport played by senator's sons (basically a sport played by the the silver-spoon fed privileged kids, who tend to come from conservative families.) you guys are generalizing at cross-purposes. He says the hard-core liberal considers himself too sophisticated for the barbarism of hockey. You say the hard-core liberal looks down on hockey as the sport of the rich and privileged. Those don't exactly go hand-in-hand. This smacks of the same generalizing we see here about "alla you guys love the retro and hate everything modern." You can find one jerk who'll agree with any bizarre position (it is the interwebs, after all). But in any meaningful number? I admit that hockey fans have a blue-collar stereotype. But even if true, "blue-collar" doesn't necessarily mean "conservative".

Not buying this. Not in any significant number.

I didn't realize they were still playing the Little World Series.

I dont know enough about the Arizona gift clause, but seems that subsidizing a private company to the tune of $25,000,000 every year would violate it.

I'm not sure that I agree with you 100% on your police work there, Lou. yeah, how do you figure?

But "National Champions"?!

I'd tend to agree. There have been so many failed expansion/relocation markets that the burden of proof on new ones should be high.

Milwaukee's DMA is smaller than Pittsburgh's, but I think that's a bit deceptive because... unlike the Bucks... an NHL club could realistically expect to draw significant TV viewership (and on the weekends, attendance) from Madison and Green Bay/Appleton. As far as the economy, it's not exactly bustling, but it is quite stable (stable being a highly relative term by today's standards, of course). The rapid job loss that characterized Milwaukee in the 80s and 90s plateaued in the 2000s and there has been some small, but notable job growth in the healthcare and alternative energy industries. In fact, Milwaukee has quietly become a player in the former due to the presence of Aurora and Covenant. Now, Milwaukee/Wisconsin is definitely NOT a 4-sport market. Had we gotten an NHL team in the early 90s, the Bucks would likely have moved by now. But the fact that the Bucks, can still pull middle-of-the-road attendance with next to no community presence and as pathetic as they've been in recent memory is proof that this is indeed a 3-sport market. All that said, I think we can hold off on the NHL-to-Milwaukee speculation at least until the Senator announces he's looking for a buyer for the Bucks (which may happen soon since he's retiring next year). I think you're right on all counts. I think Milwaukee would be a great NHL market, but it would come at the expense of the Bucks. Then again, Wisconsin has a proud and rich Civil War tradition, so if Columbus doesn't want the Blue Jackets there's a home out there where they wouldn't even have to change the name.

Yep, the same template as the shareholders ring. Lambeau Field is a missed opportunity.

I put up pics of the Packers season ticket holder rings. Blogspot apparently doesn't like hotlinking, so I'll move them to Photobucket soon.

1923: $5 1935: ? 1950: $25 1997: $200 Next time: who the heck knows?

Depends. How long can Glendale afford to write a yearly $25,000,000.00 check?

Actually, the ring has been seized and is being sold off by the IRS to satsfy part of his debts. I love Fuzzy, but he sure seems to have brought this on himself. The business practices he and his partners were guilty of are abhorrent at best, and he could have settled this debt decades ago for relative pennies on the dollar. So yeah, I wish I could buy it, but as much as I appreciate his service in green and gold I don't think I'd give it back to him if I did.

At least the Packers put diamonds on the "G" to equal ALL the World Championships, not just the four mist recent.

Yes, it's very cool. The other side has a reference to the post-game speech Charles Woodson gave after the NFC Championship game. This is the best picture I can find so far: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r0IyRXU3ts

No, you're not the only shareholder here.

Yes, it would. Seems very silly. The Packers aren't getting 2010 NFC Champions rings. Why would they?

There's also at least one season ticket holder ring, but I haven't been able to see that one yet. Any season ticket holders willing to share their pics?

That's pretty much it; the only other mens shareholder ring looks like an engraved wedding band. There are also three "fan" rings - I'll have pictures of those on my blog this weekend.

Wait for the next offering. In 92 years, there have been four so far - 1923, 1935, 1950 and 1997.

Very cool. I love the circled '29 numbers. And Lambeau Field - I was hoping they'd put that on a championship ring again. Don't care for the distorted letters on the bezel, but that's what you get nowadays. Now... Let's see the shareholder rings! . If they're anything like the 1996 rings, they'll have the same shanks.