I highly encourage anyone who has a feeling on either side of the community ownership question to read the links near the bottom of this post.
Full disclosure: I'm not a fan of watching sports: baseball, football, or any other sport. I've got good memories of hanging out at Emma's in River Falls, WI with a bunch of fans watching the Packers in the playoffs. I enjoyed the experience, but it was the crowd (and the beer) more than the game. In general, I'd rather play than watch and if I want to hang out with friends, I'd prefer to talk, read, watch a movie or play, dance, etc. That said, I recognize that many people out there really enjoy sports from community leagues to the pros. I have a some friends who can almost feel their dad sitting there with them when they turn on the game. Going to the game is a social forum for people to get together and allows for (usually) friendly competition and good natured fun. I see that they have a place in our society. So here's where I currently stand: I do not support buying stadiums for professional sports teams. They are businesses. Huge profits are made from sports - commercial advertisers, broadcast media, team owners, players, etc. These are for-profit businesses and entrepreneurs and they need to act like it. I think the idea of a publicly owned team incorporated with bylaws keeping them in-state, however, is great! Doing a "pass through" sounds like a pretty good way to work it although I'd have to see the numbers. I grew up in Wisconsin, and one thing I knew for sure - everyone wanted Packers stock, and team loyalty was far stronger than Vikings loyalty seems to be in Minnesota. If the Twins were to go public, I'd definitely buy some - and I might even go to a game now and then. I would want to see the "pass through" done in a manner that the city recovers all the money, I would want to see a good set of bylaws (including something about the team not moving), and I would expect that the public corporation would thereafter conduct itself as a self-reliant business. I wasn't very familiar with how exactly the Packers were run, so after a brief web search, here's a nice read up to give you an idea of how this sort of thing is done: http://www.newrules.org/sports/packers.html (Hey, guess what, the team paid for it's own stadium!) And from the team's site: http://www.packers.com/community/ and http://www.packers.com/history/stock_history/ It's not a government run team. It's a non-profit corporation with shareholders who have voting rights and can sell their stock back to the team for a minimal price. Shares can be transferred to relatives and heirs. Owning the team does not make the shareholders money, but it does let them own the team. It may be possible to do a "for-profit" version of the team that payed dividends and/or had increasing share value, if people wanted more of an "investment potential" than a "community team". Shares purchased in 1923 and 1935 are worth $5.00 a piece. Shares sold in 1950 are worth $25.00 a piece. Shares sold in 1997-98 are worth $200 a piece. Earlier on the list, someone mentioned that the cost to purchase the team would be less than the cost to build a new stadium. If that's actually the case, then I hope that any politician who actually thinks the government should fund a new stadium seriously considers this option. A candidate supporting working to transition the Twins to a publicly held team would not lose my vote. A candidate supporting government funding of a stadium would need the rest of their platform to be REALLY compelling to get my support. - Jason Goray, Sheridan, NE (Wanting to buy a piece of the Twins as well as some of that riverfront property!) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
