Jump to content


What's stopping the Bills from becoming like GB, in terms of owner


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 iEat_Phins

iEat_Phins

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 198 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 08:22 PM

I admit I do not know very well how team ownership and financial obligations work, so I was wondering if anyone out there has an opinion on why the Bills could not become similar to Green Bay's style of ownership: where the citizens hold "shares" of the team? I know the shares are mostly symbolic, but I don't know how the actual process works. The Bills have a very similar fan base as GB (although probably not as big on a national level), could we potentially shift to this model?

I'm sure there has been talk here on TBD of this before, but I have never seen a thread about it.

Edited by iEat_Phins, 02 December 2013 - 08:23 PM.


#2 DC Tom

DC Tom

    Also sniping at retards from the balcony

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 45,500 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 08:23 PM

View PostiEat_Phins, on 02 December 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

I admit I do not know very well how team ownership and financial obligations work, so I was wondering if anyone out there has an opinion on why the Bills could not become similar to Green Bay's style of ownership: where the citizens hold "shares" of the team? I know the shares are mostly symbolic, but I don't know how the actual process works. The Bills have a very similar fan base as GB (although probably not as big on a national level), could we potentially shift to this model?

I'm sure there has been talk here on TBD of this before, but I have never seen a thread about it.

After GB did it, the league said "Never again."

#3 iEat_Phins

iEat_Phins

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 198 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 08:26 PM

View PostDC Tom, on 02 December 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

After GB did it, the league said "Never again."

Really? If that's true that sounds ridiculous on the part of the NFL. At least they could have said "no NEW community owned teams" to prevent any random city from trying to bankroll a team. But to ban it from a team that has an aging owner with no potential buyers....

#4 Leelee Phoenix

Leelee Phoenix

    RFA

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 650 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 08:28 PM

No, the league will never ever allow that to happen again. Owners exist to make money, and any public ownership goes against that.

Besides, owning their 'stock' is a scam, you get virtually nothing for it. It's a meaningless thing to show how much of a fan you are... so Buffalo would eat it up.

#5 Buftex

Buftex

    JIM KELLY: the reason for the seasons!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,622 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 08:48 PM

View PostLeelee Phoenix, on 02 December 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

No, the league will never ever allow that to happen again. Owners exist to make money, and any public ownership goes against that.

Besides, owning their 'stock' is a scam, you get virtually nothing for it. It's a meaningless thing to show how much of a fan you are... so Buffalo would eat it up.

Yeag, Buffalo Bills fans, all 500,000 of them are a bunch of band-wagoners! :rolleyes:

#6 RuntheDamnBall

RuntheDamnBall

    GO BILLS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,841 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 08:49 PM

The NFL.

#7 Triple Threat

Triple Threat

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,126 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 09:18 PM

I think it means a bit more than fanhood there Looloo Phoenix.

#8 Rubes

Rubes

    The Doctor of Football...is IN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,944 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 09:25 PM

View PostiEat_Phins, on 02 December 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

Really? If that's true that sounds ridiculous on the part of the NFL. At least they could have said "no NEW community owned teams" to prevent any random city from trying to bankroll a team. But to ban it from a team that has an aging owner with no potential buyers....

No potential buyers? I'd be willing to bet there will be plenty of potential buyers...just not ones that Buffalo fans would want.


#9 ldandria

ldandria

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 519 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 10:00 PM

I'd buy if I were to receive actual stock in the team. I dont know why you would buy a piece of paper that says GB stock on it but is actually worthless. Why would anyone do that.

#10 dubs

dubs

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 817 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 10:06 PM

It's worth something. Most recently valued about about $250 per share, according to the last share offering in around 2011 as far as I can tell.

In total, this article shows about 5m shares outstanding. At 250 per share that's about a 1.25bn franchise.

http://johntorinus.c...h-1-25-billion/

Would be cool if buffalo could do the same. Unfortunately we know they cannot.



#11 Buftex

Buftex

    JIM KELLY: the reason for the seasons!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,622 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 11:16 PM

View Postldandria, on 02 December 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

I'd buy if I were to receive actual stock in the team. I dont know why you would buy a piece of paper that says GB stock on it but is actually worthless. Why would anyone do that.

I dunno...maybe to help insure the team staying in town...is it a lot different than somebody buying tickets for a pre-season game?
As an ex-WNYer, I would purchase a stock or two if it contributed to the team staying in WNY.

#12 beerme1

beerme1

    Whadda you lookin at?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,321 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 11:23 PM

Again? Oy!

#13 Webster Guy

Webster Guy

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,181 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 12:27 AM

The NFL changes rules all the time.   I love how everyone acts like they can see the future and that the league won't allow that again.    Did you all think the same about gay marriage and legalization of marijuana?

My take is that things that make sense ultimately will come to fruition.   It's the timetable that's unknown.    Does anybody know what the downside of having shareholders and a board of directors is in the case of Green Bay? because the vast majority of billion dollar corporations in the USA are structured that way.

Just remember this is a league that still uses CHAINS bolted around STICKS to measure ten yards out on the field.     They actually have guys run out there and measure.    A laser system shot from the sidelines is easier, more accurate and instantaneous.     But the NFL still uses chains.

They wont always use chains, I guarantee it.

#14 ExiledInIllinois

ExiledInIllinois

    Making It Flow Backwards

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,872 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 01:01 AM

Why against community owned teams?  It is an old concept that works.  Packers are the only one in all 4 major N. American sports... They could stand another.  What are the owners afraid?  The Domino Effect.

The owners have no problem playing in publically funded home stadiums.

Here's the list of teams that are community owned throughout the world:

http://en.m.wikipedi...ed_sports_teams

Edited by ExiledInIllinois, 03 December 2013 - 01:03 AM.


#15 Leelee Phoenix

Leelee Phoenix

    RFA

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 650 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 01:02 AM

View PostTriple Threat, on 02 December 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

I think it means a bit more than fanhood there Looloo Phoenix.
No, it really doesn't. GB stock owners have no say in anything. They get a cut on buying merchandise, that's it. There's various articles on this.

View PostBuftex, on 02 December 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

I dunno...maybe to help insure the team staying in town...is it a lot different than somebody buying tickets for a pre-season game?
As an ex-WNYer, I would purchase a stock or two if it contributed to the team staying in WNY.
I honestly feel bad for you.

View PostWebster Guy, on 03 December 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

The NFL changes rules all the time.   I love how everyone acts like they can see the future and that the league won't allow that again. Did you all think the same about gay marriage and legalization of marijuana?
...

Edited by Leelee Phoenix, 03 December 2013 - 01:03 AM.


#16 ExiledInIllinois

ExiledInIllinois

    Making It Flow Backwards

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,872 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 01:52 AM

View PostWebster Guy, on 03 December 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

Just remember this is a league that still uses CHAINS bolted around STICKS to measure ten yards out on the field.     They actually have guys run out there and measure.    A laser system shot from the sidelines is easier, more accurate and instantaneous.     But the NFL still uses chains.

They wont always use chains, I guarantee it.

IMO, they will never get rid of the rod/stick & chain... They already got it down to the minimum number of guys on the chain crew and the accuracy MAY not be that much better.

I worked as a hydrographic surveyor on a survey crew.  I used to sound (take depth readings) all the harbors (and rivers associated w/them) from Toledo, OH in the west to Ogdensburg, NY in east. We'd take the soundings to determine how much material would or would not have to be dredged (Harbors & Rivers Act).  I did this during the era that led into GPS technology.  Pre-GPS, we would have to establish elevation guages in the water and then build baseline all along a shore and then we would sound the water @ stations off that baseline... All by hand, in a rowboat w/a small outboard motor... We would get to 100th of an inch onshore for the baseline with rods and chains and then come off those stations with a boat and tagline.  A tagline was a big spool of cable on the boat that had cloth markers every 5 feet.  As the boat came off the baseline @ the designated angle (usually 90 degrees set by guy w/sextant or two range poles when there was no shore guy), the tagline would pay out... Another guy would then take a hand sounding with a lead line (think window sash chain with various types of weights depending on botton type) @ various tagline cloth marks.  The sounder would call the depth reading out while the crew chief recorded the sounding and @ what point... w/paper and pencil that data would be recorded into the survey book.  Data would be then be corrected/adjusted to the elevation of the water.  All sounding data would then be plotted onto a chart @ the office.  Sometimes big harbors like BFLO, the survey boat would not have enough tagline... +1,000's of feet on the spool.   More boats would be needed to cross and get the measurements way out.  It would take 3 crews of 5 or 6 guys to work a place like BFLO Harbor, year in and year out, maintaining it...

Now... One or two guys in a survey launch can sweep the harbor in half a day with GPS!

Anyway... Back in the day we would build that baseline to 100th of an inch yet when we would get out onto the water we could be within 10 feet to take the sounding!  :-O

What is the accuracy of the GPS?  Under 30 feet?  :-O

Close enough?  Both?  Building a missile base to launch bottle rockets?

Anyway... Sorry for the long winded story, but IMO football is better served with the slightly more people needed to operate the chains and sticks/rods as a crew.  The observer (fan) can actually see the integrity of the chain.  Go to lasers and what not, who's not second guessing that the parameters set in the machine aren't being doctored or cheated with?  Do you trust the tech and the NFL?  I want to see a chain!  Just as good and just as accurate.

Mechanical chains are trustworthy... Save the GPS and lasers for BFLO Harbor where they can eliminate 100 year 'round good paying jobs (from rod & chainmen to plotters and drafters) for 2 guys doing it all!



#17 QCity

QCity

    GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,464 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 02:08 AM

Pete Rozelle banned it back in 1960 - he wants teams making lots and lots of $$$$$$$$.  

Article V, Section 4 of the NFL constitution, the “Green Bay Rule,” says that “charitable organizations and/or corporations not organized for profit and not now a member of the league may not hold membership in the National Football League.”

The right way? The Green Bay way

#18 djp14150

djp14150

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 02:56 AM

View PostQCity, on 03 December 2013 - 02:08 AM, said:

Pete Rozelle banned it back in 1960 - he wants teams making lots and lots of $$$$$$$$.  

Article V, Section 4 of the NFL constitution, the “Green Bay Rule,” says that “charitable organizations and/or corporations not organized for profit and not now a member of the league may not hold membership in the National Football League.”

The right way? The Green Bay way

The way around it, is it creates stocks that are then sold but not publicly traded.  There are rules regarding this.  they could initially set it up ast has a total of 10,000,000 shares valued at $70 = $700M.

probably 60-70% of it is owned by single large investors, and thus have voting power.....and the other 30-40% are for smaller scale stock holders with no voting power.  It is a way to raise money to purchase a team and it legally follows the NFL rules.

#19 KRC

KRC

    Sammavaca

  • PPP Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,394 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 06:37 AM

Even though it did not get into the NFL constitution until the 1960s, the attitude actually goes back to the late 1940s (with a Buffalo connection). When the AAFC was merging with the NFL, Buffalo tried to get a team. Owner Jim Breuil did not want to continue. A community effort took place to get a team, including selling shares. The NFL turned this down. They wanted one person who had the authority to act alone for meetings, etc. Even if you appoint an executive director or president to run things, they still go through a board of directors for approval on major items. Buffalo did not have one person who could act unilaterally. Buffalo had other issues, which ultimately prevented them getting a team, but that is when this philosophy became public.

#20 8and8Forever

8and8Forever

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,310 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 06:56 AM

View PostiEat_Phins, on 02 December 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

Really? If that's true that sounds ridiculous on the part of the NFL. At least they could have said "no NEW community owned teams" to prevent any random city from trying to bankroll a team. But to ban it from a team that has an aging owner with no potential buyers....
No potential buyers?   Are you insane?   When this team is put up for auction, it will be the wildest "can you top this" event in the history of the NFL.   When has an NFL team (there are only 32 of them in the universe) ever (ever) been put up for open auction?   I believe the answer is "never" (someone needs to look this up).   This will be wild, with many bidders coming out of the woodwork for whom money is no object.   The whole GB thing is very quaint, but you guys need to wake up and smell the coffee… this auction will be wild and any cute little group from the ole B Lo who thinks they will get the home town discount is in for a rude awakening.