? on Owners Approvel

Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
198
Here's a statement that surfaced about this years taking a knee policy in the NFL meetings.
It's just a question about ownership, so don't turn this into who takes a knee and who don't discussion.

"Team owners approved the policy change at their May meeting,"


If the Packers are own by us the fans, wouldn't "WE" have to approve this change representing The Packers?????

Just Curious
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
because "WE" don't really own ****. a board of directors runs the Packers by choosing presidents, VP's who in turn choose GM's and coaches. Mark Murphy is the face of the GB Packers in the league's eyes. Did any of us have a hand in hiring him? No, so what makes you think we have any say in anything?
 

weeds

Fiber deprived old guy.
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
2,044
Location
Oshkosh, WI
That's correct - we don't own ****. We fans essentially "gifted" money to the Packers to remodel Lambeau. In return, we got a sheet of paper to frame and hang in the family room. AND, we did it voluntarily because we love this franchise.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Here's a statement that surfaced about this years taking a knee policy in the NFL meetings.
It's just a question about ownership, so don't turn this into who takes a knee and who don't discussion.

"Team owners approved the policy change at their May meeting,"


If the Packers are own by us the fans, wouldn't "WE" have to approve this change representing The Packers?????

Just Curious
First, know that this rule is now temporarily suspended with the NFLPA weighing in:

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/19/6306...-who-protest-during-anthem-might-be-suspended

Anyway, you vote for the Board of Directors to make your decisions for you like any other corporation in which you might own shares. The board hires senior management and delegates to them decision making authorities like any other corporation in which you might own shares. In other corporations, if you want to be an activist with interests contrary to those of the board or management, you'd have to acquire a sufficient number of shares (or join together with a group constituting significant shares) to get board candidates on the proxy ballot or to put a resolution on the annual proxy ballot for a shareholder vote.

Since the shares have no monetary value, ownership is highly fragmented. There are no large shareholders. I think I read somewhere that somebody has 1,000 shares but I couldn't say why or how. Maybe you could do a petition drive to get a resolution on the proxy ballot. You'd have to check the corporate charter, by-laws or any other pertinent corporate documents to determine the criteria for a ballot resolution.

To take one example, let's say you're a Walmart shareholder and are deeply offended that they stopped selling semi-automatic rifles and will not sell guns or ammo to anybody under 21. What is your recourse?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
There are no large shareholders. I think I read somewhere that somebody has 1,000 shares but I couldn't say why or how.

It's tough to find information about shareholders but according to his wife the former publisher of the Green Bay Press-Gazette and president of the Packers Hall of Fame board Michael Gage was the largest one when he died five years ago.

It might be possible there are some people having a significant amount of shares though as the articles of incorporation prohibit any person from owning more than 200,000 shares to protect against someone taking control of the team.
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,548
Reaction score
659
To take one example, let's say you're a Walmart shareholder and are deeply offended that they stopped selling semi-automatic rifles and will not sell guns or ammo to anybody under 21. What is your recourse?

Same (none), as an individual, just as much as you'd have in any organization/group of really large numbers - government, religion, school district, commercial, et. al. However, in most of them, get enough like-minded folks together, put the change on the ballot, and now you've got something.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
It's tough to find information about shareholders but according to his wife the former publisher of the Green Bay Press-Gazette and president of the Packers Hall of Fame board Michael Gage was the largest one when he died five years ago.

It might be possible there are some people having a significant amount of shares though as the articles of incorporation prohibit any person from owning more than 200,000 shares to protect against someone taking control of the team.
It appears Mr. Gage and one other individual held 200,000 shares at the time of the 2011 stock issuance.

Here are some factoids on share ownership and how those two individuals would have come by those substantial holdings:

According to this Wikipedia page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc.], prior to the '97-'98 share issuance there were 1,940 share holders holding about 5,000 shares. The page inconsistently states there were 1,940 shares outstanding at the time, one per shareholder. If the other data is correct, it looks like there were 300 shares coming out of the 1950 insolvency/reorganization with another 4,700 issued in 1950 bringing the total to 5,000 shares up to the '97-'98 share issuance.

In conjunction with the '97 - '98 share issuance, the incumbent 5,000 shares were split 1,000-to-1. So anybody holding one share prior to '97 - '98 now held 1,000 shares, and the incumbent 5,000 shares became 5,000,000. At the same time, the max shares one could own was bumped from 200 to 200,000 in line with that split.

The '97 - '98 new share issuance added 120,000 new shares and the 2011 new share issuance added another 269,000 shares. That would bring the total shares to about 5.4 million. That number is a little off, but close enough llustrate a couple of points.

This link [https://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/01/13/are-the-green-bay-packers-the-worst-stock-in-america/] says the two largest shareholders at the time of the 2011 share issuance held the max 200,000 shares each.

One of those shareholders was evidently Mr. Gage. Since he was the third generation publisher of the Press Gazette, it would stand to reason those shares were passed down from his grandfather or father who owned 200 shares pre-split dating from purchases in 1950 or prior.

I'm not finding anything on the disposition of Mr. Gage's shares upon his death, whether Mrs. Gage retained them through bequest or whether she disposed of them, perhaps by donation to the Packer Foundation. She's not on the Board Directors, if she was so inclined, as would be appropriate for about 4% voting interest. I couldn't say if she's still alive or if those shares passed on to somebody else.

Anyway, if Mrs. Gage still holds those shares and one could find out who the other 200,000 shareholder happens to be, those two individuals would be together holding about an 8% ownership which is significant voting power. If one were of an activist bent, lobbying those individuals would be the place to start.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
In researching the above, I found this unrelated factoid of at least casual interest to some Packer shareholders:

"The fine print on the Packers' [2011] stock sale website says, too, that NFL rules prohibit shareholders from betting on any NFL game; violators could face up to $5,000 in fines."

https://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/01/13/are-the-green-bay-packers-the-worst-stock-in-america/

Of course if you gambled on games at a Nevada sports book or some off-shore entity, you were already in violation of NFL rules, not that there's any indication of enforcement or even how they would go about it.

However, with the recent Supreme Court decision New Jersey is now open for business with other states soon to follow increasing the opportunities to violate the rule. Since Jerry and Bob have ownership interest in on-line fantasy betting, it looks like you're in the clear on that score since you're betting on players not "games", which of course must not be hypocrisy by loophole. :whistling:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
Wi. Mike now in Florida
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
198
I never realized how complicated being a share holder in the NFL can be :sleep:

Whoever thought up that share holder plan without representation and a
piece of paper to show for it was one smooth cookie in Green Bay.
 
OP
OP
Wi. Mike now in Florida
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
198
About
In researching the above, I found this unrelated factoid of at least casual interest to some Packer shareholders:

"The fine print on the Packers' [2011] stock sale website says, too, that NFL rules prohibit shareholders from betting on any NFL game; violators could face up to $5,000 in fines."

https://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/01/13/are-the-green-bay-packers-the-worst-stock-in-america/

Of course if you gambled on games at a Nevada sports book or some off-shore entity, you were already in violation of NFL rules, not that there's any indication of enforcement or even how they would go about it.

However, with the recent Supreme Court decision New Jersey is now open for business with other states soon to follow increasing the opportunities to violate the rule. Since Jerry and Bob have ownership interest in on-line fantasy betting, it looks like you're in the clear on that score since you're betting on players not "games", which of course must not be hypocrisy by loophole. :whistling:
I laughed reading this because back in the old days, a tavern I went to ran a football pool every week the Packer's played.
The stakes were $1000 to get in, payed off on each quarter with numbers drawing on Monday for the next weekend.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I never realized how complicated being a share holder in the NFL can be :sleep:

Whoever thought up that share holder plan without representation and a
piece of paper to show for it was one smooth cookie in Green Bay.
It's not that different from any other corporation in terms of shareholder rights. While there's no mechanism by which to to buy or sell shares and no dividends are issued, thereby granting the shares no tangible monetary value, the voting process is not dissimlar from any other corporation. The key difference is the 200,000 share ownership cap which limits one person's voting power to about 4%. Publicly traded corporations do not have such a cap where up to 5% ownership does not even require immediate disclosure. The Packers 4% cap does limit any one person from having considerable power. With publicly traded corporations, activist hedge funds, private equity funds, mutual funds or large pension funds like CALPERS might take much larger positions than 4%, seek board representation, management changes, stage proxy battles or seek a takeover. That can't happen with the Packers unless a bunch of shareholders got together in one form or another with a single voice over a particular issue to bring pressure to bear.

Nonetheless, with the Packers it is one-share-one-vote like any other corporation.

When that 1-to-1000 stock split took place it would have been by shareholder vote whereby those incumbent shareholders were protecting themselves from ownership dilution, which actually seems fair. In any event, it's what shareholders do, voting their interests.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
Wi. Mike now in Florida
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
198
Top