Discussion in 'The National Football League' started by Wolf, Mar 1, 2012.
While I respect the history of the Packers, I have to wonder how this is fair to the other 31 teams? Upgrading their stadium will increase revenue, which in turn gives them cash to sign free agents. Other teams are not allowed to sell stock to raise funds, so it seems like a bit of a double-standard that nobody wants to confront because it's the Packers.
go pack go!
I don't really have a problem with it. I'd actually like to see more teams have the option to move to a similar type of ownership structure. Wouldn't mind owning 200 shares of the Houston Texans.
Why? You're willing to spend over $50,000 for sheets of paper that represent the most diluted stock imaginable just so you can attend a meeting with 360,00 other people? The article even said these stocks hold zero value other than getting access to "shareholder" apparel.
Some people are hooked on crack. Others are hooked on the Texans. I'd love to own a piece.
1 piece makes sense because its nice memorabilia, but 200 at $275 a piece?
First, to each his own, and this is hypothetical. I could've said 1k, what does it matter? Second, I didn't say anything about keeping them to myself. If the same rules were in-place, I might not be able to transfer ownership of the stock, but that doesn't mean that I couldn't give certificates themselves out as gifts
Why would you care how many I purchased/how much I spent? It's not like you live with me and I have to care and feed you
I have been drinking so please bare with me
I was thinking this is smart (in a way). Just a different point of view here.
say Houston needed upgrading on their stadium and they had to pass a referendum to get the tax payers to help pay for upgrades . people that don't care don't like the tax increase,so you hear some negative in that
with the packers they are selling "worthless" stuff to fans that can attend a meeting and feel "empowered" (due to vote whether it is what they want or not but they feel they have a say) .
it generates money
Seeing how owning 1 share has the same value as owning 1,000 shares I was just wondering why you would buy so many. Apologies majerstrate, for not considering the fact that you may intend to give away worthless sheets of paper away as gifts. In that sense, they would literally be worthless since ownership can't be transferred and the recipient would just be getting a sheet that says "You are part owner of the Houston Texans", when in reality they are not. More power to you though, I'm sorry if my initial comment may have offended you in any way.
NFL rules dictate that no other team can move to a fan based ownership structure.
There are many things I consider to be worthless, but others do not. Worthless to you doesn't mean worthless to everyone. But thank you for your judgement of me, I'll value it greatly throughout my life.
FIFY. Rules can be changed, few things are set in stone.
And they sold out them so fast. Green Bay even spot-fabricated more shares to meet demand. Worthless? I don't think so and apparently as many as 250,000 buyers agree with me.
Like I said, buying 1 share makes sense but buying 200 shares makes zero sense unless you want to donate a large sum of money (to the average person) to the Green Bay Packers who wipes their ass with that same amount. When you buy 1 of these shares you get to call yourself "part owner", get to vote at a shareholders meeting, and access to some apparel, which honestly sounds pretty cool. When you buy 200 shares you get to call yourself "part owner", get to vote at a shareholders meeting, and access to some apparel but hold no more power than the guy that has 1 share. It doesn't surprise me they sold out, and it won't surprise me when they dilute more shares and sell them again in the future. It does surprise me if people are actually buying 200 shares (the maximum amount you can buy).
Goodell and the owners have it setup to eliminate that possibility. It is in stone. It will never happen.
What The Cush is saying is that one share isn't any different than 2, 5, 10, or 1,000 shares. There is nothing extra you get for having more than one. If you just want to give them the money, that's certainly your business but your 200 shares doesn't get you any more than the guy with one share. Your vote weighs exactly the same as his. And giving them away as gifts isn't any different than me printing them up myself and passing them out. Same worthless piece of paper that doesn't entitle the holder of it to anything, no voting, no meetings, etc.
Yes it is different. Theirs is authentic. Yours would be not. I think Cush missed what I was getting at... the value for this piece of authentic memorabilia is sure to rise over time. Especially if Green Bay does not print any more. 250,000 isn't that many. I'd probably pay $275 on the open market for it today. These "shares" are about making money. Like baseball cards. If I could buy 200 Pete Rose rookies below market-value and re-sell them... I would. Or even re-gift as majestrate implied. That'd be a superb white elephant gift at the tailgates.
I'm just saying... what does it matter how many we buy but we certainly understand how little power we actually have.
I’ll receive a stock certificate by mail at some point, but my one share won’t ever go up in value, nor will it pay out any dividends. In fact, the 20-page prospectus for the stock offering makes clear, in capital letters, that “it is virtually impossible for anyone to realize a profit on a purchase of common stock or even to recoup the amount initially paid.” I’m not allowed to sell my ownership stake, and if I ever decide that I want to, the team apparently has the right to buy it back from me – for 2.5 cents.
That's some doo-doo. Then watch them mass-produce annually with a limited edition version.
So your saying the actual certificate itself would rise in value, even though ownership of the stock itself can't be transferred since your name is printed on the stock? This is from an article from after the previous stock sale that says you can't re-sell these..
My original post was legitimately wondering why someone would buy 200 shares as I do not see the benefit. The post I was replying to then had the wording "owning 200 shares" so I assumed they planned on keeping them all. If you plan on giving them out as gifts and buy the stocks in another persons name, that makes sense. If you buy them all in your name and get your name printed on the certificates then give them away, thats a head scratcher still. But maybe your right about the value going up as a collector's item, so there you go thanks for answering my original question.
Separate names with a comma.