Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raleigh NC Packers Fan" data-source="post: 908730" data-attributes="member: 14725">I wrote this in another thread but I think it is relevant here. This is my opinion on having an owner. As a stockholder, I really don't get why some think that having an owner is the answer. We have a salary cap, so there are no advantage to having a rich owner, and the GM makes all of the personnel decisions just like with any other team. If a new GM does need to be chosen or input is needed in making some decisions(which is probably very rare), then the president can fulfill that role.Having stockholders also does make us unique, and we also probably have a larger fanbase at least in part because of this.To answer your question, the board of directors would be the ones that would hire or fire the president, so the stockholders couldn't have a role in resolving this, nor do I see how this situation(or the one with Farve)is caused by having stockholders instead of an owner.We have also seen plenty of owners with an ego problem micromanage franchises, doing the job of the GM(or hiring bad/firing good GMs) running the team into the ground, and who only got the job through nepotism.Finally, for those of you who live in Green Bay, the Packers would have almost certainly moved out a long time ago if they had an owner.</blockquote>

Total: 81 (members: 7, guests: 74)