On 5/18/05 2:03 PM, "Robert Schmid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> history of packer community ownership. >> http://www.packers.com/history/fast_facts/stock_history/ >> >> packer stock is worthless. you get to vote but get nothing else. it >> doesn't appreciate, you can't sell it but back to the packers for a >> fraction of the purchase price. I don't believe the stock allows you >> to make any decisions on the direction of the team. when the team >> needs more money, they sell more stock, effectively making your share >> even more worthless. > > Interesting. What I'm hearing here is that you're more than happy to > SPEND *my* money on a Stadium but you aren't willing to INVEST yours for > the same purpose. > > I keep hearing that the Stadium will be an economic boon to the community > but now I'm hearing that it's not worth buying stock in...
Um, no. What you're hearing first is John Harris stating his willingness to be taxed a mere 3 cents on $20 to keep the Twins franchise viable since he presumably spends money at retailers in Hennepin County. Then what you're hearing is that when people cite the Green Bay Packers as some glowing example of community ownership that all professional sports franchises should model, they really don't know what they're talking about, not that there would be no economic benefit to a new Twins ballpark. >> the presence of stock isn't what kept the packers in green bay... >> >> Based on the original 'Articles of Incorporation for the (then) Green >> Bay Football Corporation' put into place in 1923, if the Packers >> franchise was sold, after the payment of all expenses, any remaining >> monies would go to the Sullivan-Wallen Post of the American Legion in >> order to build "a proper soldier's memorial." This stipulation was >> enacted to ensure that the club remained in Green Bay and that there >> could never be any financial enhancement for the shareholder. The >> beneficiary was changed from the Sullivan-Wallen Post to the Green Bay >> Packers Foundation on the basis of a shareholder vote at the November >> 1997, meeting. > > There is a big difference between a for-profit owner and a non-profit > beneficiary. You can find out what the Packers Foundation does with its > money here - http://www.packers.com/community/packers_foundation/. Yes, there is a big difference. Check out the Twins Community Fund http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/min/community/min_community_progra ms.jsp And note that in 2004 alone, the Twins Community Fund distributed $2.85 million, or more than twice what the Packers Foundation has distributed in its' nearly 20-year existence. This is despite the fact that while the Packers turn a profit each year, the Twins routinely lose money because all team revenues (and then some) are plowed back into player salaries and the minor league system. Kinda shoots a hole in that "for-profit ownership is evil and non-profit beneficiary is good" theory, doesn't it? If Carl Pohlad and family are as cold, heartless and greedy as the anti-stadium crowd wants us to believe, what does that say about those "community owners" in Green Bay? Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
