Will we ever have a modern Green Bay in sports?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

STL didn't really have a strong pro-football pedigree in the olden days. they had a couple teams here and there (the All-stars and the Gunners) that quickly folded after a season or two. it wasn't until the cardinals moved down there from chicago in 1960 that st. louis had a strong and stable NFL presence.

what's kinda interesting is that the NFL cardinal's stint in arizona is now longer than they were in STL, and almost as long as they were in chicago for back in the olden days.

Racine Cardinals (1920–1921) - 2 seasons
Chicago Cardinals (1922–1959) - 37 seasons
St. Louis Cardinals (1960–1987) - 27 seasons
Arizona Cardinals (1988–present) - 33 seasons



but i bet there's still a few old-schoolers in SE wisconsin hoping that they team will finally come to its senses and move back to their ancestral home city of Racine.

That's an interesting time comparison. And it makes me feel old since I remember the Cardinals moving to Phoenix.

Also interesting is how the Rams started in Cleveland for ~10 years, moved to LA for ~50 years, to S. Louis for ~20 years, and now back to LA for the last 6. Like in the case of Racine, maybe the Rams leave the sunny shores of the Pacific for a return to their homeland on the gray shores of Lake Erie... Improbable, but I'd actually root for them if the did return to a location where football is actually appreciated.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I gotta believe that it's as simple as the owners just wanted to move back to LA and make more $

That's exactly what it was. That's also why it's hard to imagine a small market being a viable location for a major league team. Team owners make a significant amount of money off of ticket revenue, concessions, etc. In many places the stadiums also host to other revenue generating events that wouldn't be possible in small markets (major concerts, college bowl games, etc). It is in their interest to locate their teams in large markets.

[Crawford]

I'm not even positive that Green Bay, long-term, is a sure thing. Yes, they have unique ownership structure, yes they have a fantastic fanbase and yes they have a record of success.

At the same time, it's well known that they have a tough time attracting free agents and front office talent, and their modern-day success is probably a function of drafting two Hall of Fame QBs (Favre and Rodgers).

I remember watching Sportscenter and they were talking about Odell Beckham Jr. and why he picked the Rams over the Packers, and they just laughed. Especially if you have a spouse or kids, you could see why Green Bay is a tough sell. Is there even one high achieving school? Is there anything for the wife to do?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, they have unique ownership structure,

and that's why they will never leave green bay.

unique among all 5 of the big 5 NA sports leagues, the packers are owned by a publicly held nonprofit corporation. they have a total of 361,300 stockholders (the vast majority of whom are regular old packers fans in wisconsin) with a combined total of 5,011,558 shares and no one person/entity is allowed to own more than 200K shares.

there is just no realistic way that their stockholders would ever agree to move or sell the team.

packers football is the official state religion of wisconsin, money simply isn't part of the equation.

the packers could go 0-17 for the next 100 seasons in a row, and they still wouldn't go anywhere.

[Crawford]

Maybe you're right. But if they don't have a HOF QB, I'm not sure they have much hope to compete.

Absent a generational QB, it's the toughest sell in football for free agents and front office.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm not even positive that Green Bay, long-term, is a sure thing. Yes, they have unique ownership structure, yes they have a fantastic fanbase and yes they have a record of success.

Is it so unique? I think it's the most ridiculous thing ever. GB sells "shares" to fans but they're not real shares that imputes ownership. If those "shareholders" think they have a claim that can stop GB from relocating, lol, they have another thing coming.

One year after booking record profits, Packers seeking $90M in faux 'stock offering' to fan base

In what continues to be one of the greatest marketing schemes in NFL history, the Green Bay Packers are set to offer 300,000 “stock shares” to fans on Tuesday morning. But as the franchise has explained the previous five times it's created such a sale, the “stock” is essentially nothing more than a piece of team memorabilia. Or given its lack of utility, a paper version of cryptocurrency that can’t be spent anywhere.

I love football but as I said in my last post, it's a fucking greedy sport.

[hipster duck]

Back in 2009 when the BlackBerry was all the rage, co-founder and billionaire Jim Balsillie wanted to buy the Phoenix Coyotes for $212 million and move the franchise. Initially there was speculation they would move to Kitchener-Waterloo - metro population 400,000 at the time - but Balsillie later clarified he wanted to move the Coyotes to Hamilton (pop 700,000 at the time).

Anyway, he gave up the pursuit of buying the team when an Arizona bankruptcy judge ruled out any bidders. Also, Hamilton (or Kitchener-Waterloo) isn’t exactly a standalone small-sized metro. It would have effectively been a second team in the most valuable hockey market in the world.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Maybe you're right. But if they don't have a HOF QB, I'm not sure they have much hope to compete.

Absent a generational QB, it's the toughest sell in football for free agents and front office.

well yeah, with 3 HoF QBs in their history (Starr, Favre, and Rodgers), the packers have been kooky lucky at that particular position, which no doubt has had a giant impact on them staying competitive/relevant.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and that's why they will never leave green bay.

unique among all 5 of the big 5 NA sports leagues, the packers are owned by a publicly held nonprofit corporation. they have a total of 361,300 stockholders (the vast majority of whom are regular old packers fans in wisconsin) with a combined total of 5,011,558 shares and no one person/entity is allowed to own more than 200K shares.

there is just no realistic way that their stockholders would ever agree to move or sell the team.

packers football is the official state religion of wisconsin, money simply isn't part of the equation.

the packers could go 0-17 for the next 100 seasons in a row, and they still wouldn't go anywhere.

That last part is what I'm not so sure about. I think the longterm viability of the Packers in Green Bay depends on them being a competitive team on a consistent basis. If the Packers had the Lions record I don't see how they could've stayed in Green Bay.

[edale]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Back in 2009 when the BlackBerry was all the rage, co-founder and billionaire Jim Balsillie wanted to buy the Phoenix Coyotes for $212 million and move the franchise. Initially there was speculation they would move to Kitchener-Waterloo - metro population 400,000 at the time - but Balsillie later clarified he wanted to move the Coyotes to Hamilton (pop 700,000 at the time).

Anyway, he gave up the pursuit of buying the team when an Arizona bankruptcy judge ruled out any bidders. Also, Hamilton (or Kitchener-Waterloo) isn’t exactly a standalone small-sized metro. It would have effectively been a second team in the most valuable hockey market in the world.

The discussion about second teams in markets made me think about the possibility of a second NHL team in the greater Toronto area. I know the city is passionate about the Maple Leafs, but it's a huge, growing market in a country that loves hockey. If Winnipeg can support a team, I think Toronto could support two.

It seems like a team in Hamilton could be to Toronto what the Angels/Ducks are for LA. I know Hamilton is a real city and is very different from Orange County, but it seems like a NHL team there could serve both the city of Hamilton and also be a secondary team for Toronto and its southern suburbs. Or maybe a team could locate in Burlington or Oakville to serve both the Hamilton and Toronto markets. I know next to nothing about these places, so this could be a ludicrous suggestion.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm not even positive that Green Bay, long-term, is a sure thing. Yes, they have unique ownership structure, yes they have a fantastic fanbase and yes they have a record of success.

At the same time, it's well known that they have a tough time attracting free agents and front office talent, and their modern-day success is probably a function of drafting two Hall of Fame QBs (Favre and Rodgers).

I remember watching Sportscenter and they were talking about Odell Beckham Jr. and why he picked the Rams over the Packers, and they just laughed. Especially if you have a spouse or kids, you could see why Green Bay is a tough sell. Is there even one high achieving school? Is there anything for the wife to do?

Arent the packers owned by the residents of the city or something like that? They will never leave

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by edale

The discussion about second teams in markets made me think about the possibility of a second NHL team in the greater Toronto area. I know the city is passionate about the Maple Leafs, but it's a huge, growing market in a country that loves hockey. If Winnipeg can support a team, I think Toronto could support two.

Toronto could definitely support two NHL teams. It's basically to hockey what LA is to basketball or New York is to baseball, both of which have two teams. Hell, you don't even need to have a suburban team. You could have both NHL teams play out of Scotiabank arena the same way that the Clippers and the Lakers share the Staples Center (or whatever it's called now), and the second team would still be wildly successful.

And unlike other alpha teams in their leagues like the Yankees or the Lakers, the Leafs suck and have been sucking for over 50 years. You could siphon off a lot of fans if you had a team that could make it past the first round of the playoffs for a change.

Alas, as Italian-born University of Chicago economist Luigi Zingales once joked: "Sports are the only thing in America that's uncompetitive, and the only thing in Europe that is competitive".

Teams aren't going to relocate, even if they're bleeding cash, and this is doubly true in the Gary Bettman-led expansion-friendly NHL. Only in the NHL would you have a team like the Phoenix Coyotes, who went bankrupt, were owned by the NHL for 4 years while looking for purchasers, almost got locked out of their arena because they couldn't pay the lease and are in serious talks to get second dibs on a 5,000 seat arena shared with ASU.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I remember watching Sportscenter and they were talking about Odell Beckham Jr. and why he picked the Rams over the Packers, and they just laughed. Especially if you have a spouse or kids, you could see why Green Bay is a tough sell. Is there even one high achieving school? Is there anything for the wife to do?

One of my best friends commutes to Green Bay, where he teaches at a small college that shall remain nameless. His wife is a professor at U of Wisconsin, Oshkosh. He said that a major issue during the winters is garage doors getting stuck open. It's also a big deal to watch the ice break up on Lake Winnebago.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Toronto could definitely support two NHL teams. It's basically to hockey what LA is to basketball or New York is to baseball, both of which have two teams. Hell, you don't even need to have a suburban team. You could have both NHL teams play out of Scotiabank arena the same way that the Clippers and the Lakers share the Staples Center (or whatever it's called now), and the second team would still be wildly successful.

Yeah, if NY Metro can support three NHL teams, then Toronto can support two.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

One of my best friends commutes to Green Bay, where he teaches at a small college that shall remain nameless. His wife is a professor at U of Wisconsin, Oshkosh. He said that a major issue during the winters is garage doors getting stuck open. It's also a big deal to watch the ice break up on Lake Winnebago.

LOL! Never heard of this and I live in a colder climate than Green Bay.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That last part is what I'm not so sure about. I think the longterm viability of the Packers in Green Bay depends on them being a competitive team on a consistent basis. If the Packers had the Lions record I don't see how they could've stayed in Green Bay.

Maybe they won't be in Green Bay forever but like Steely's mentioned elsewhere, the Packers are Wisconsin's team. Hard to go anywhere in that state without seeing dark green and gold.

In addition to the unique ownership situation, I also wonder if their national following helps keep them in Green Bay? I know way too many people, even in Arizona, who make the pilgrimage to Lambeau at some point in their lives. I'd reckon they're at least in the top five of NFL teams with a national following?

Hell, my parents and I bought Packers stock (I know, shut up...) and are considering going to a game because friends of my parents in Mesa are season ticket holders and we might be able to buy tickets from them?

Compare that to, say, the Bengals. Yeah they're in the Super Bowl but their only primetime game this season before the playoffs was a Thursday night game against the Jaguars in Week 4. They also have a convoluted/sweetheart stadium lease that's up for renegotiation in 2026. I could easily see them leaving if the Bengals ownership doesn't get their way in Cincinnati/Hamilton County. They don't have the same level of national recognition or following as the Packers and who knows if this season is a fluke or if they have the staying power of the Patriots or Chiefs?

[edale]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Maybe they won't be in Green Bay forever but like Steely's mentioned elsewhere, the Packers are Wisconsin's team. Hard to go anywhere in that state without seeing dark green and gold.

I'm also wondering if their national following helps keep them in Green Bay? I know way too many people, even in Arizona, who make the pilgrimage to Lambeau at some point in their lives. I'd reckon they're at least in the top five of NFL teams with a national following?

Hell, my parents and I bought Packers stock (I know, shut up...) and are considering going to a game because friends of my parents in Mesa are season ticket holders and we might be able to buy tickets from them?

Compare that to, say, the Bengals. Yeah they're in the Super Bowl but their only primetime game this season before the playoffs was a Thursday night game against the Jaguars in Week 4. They also have a convoluted/sweetheart stadium lease that's up for renegotiation in 2026. I could easily see them leaving if the Bengals ownership doesn't get their way in Cincinnati/Hamilton County. They don't have the same level of national recognition or following as the Packers and who knows if this season is a fluke or if they have the staying power of the Patriots or Chiefs?

The Bengals aren't going anywhere. Especially not after this season's Super Bowl run.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm not even positive that Green Bay, long-term, is a sure thing. Yes, they have unique ownership structure, yes they have a fantastic fanbase and yes they have a record of success.

At the same time, it's well known that they have a tough time attracting free agents and front office talent, and their modern-day success is probably a function of drafting two Hall of Fame QBs (Favre and Rodgers).

I remember watching Sportscenter and they were talking about Odell Beckham Jr. and why he picked the Rams over the Packers, and they just laughed. Especially if you have a spouse or kids, you could see why Green Bay is a tough sell. Is there even one high achieving school? Is there anything for the wife to do?

I think their modern-day success goes well beyond having Favre and Rodgers, though they have obviously helped The Packers have had a pretty nice Hall of Fame supporting cast over the years.

Seems to me like the Packers' modern-day success has a lot to do with stability and a longstanding commitment to excellence... 13 NFL championships.

And yes, having only 2 starting quarterbacks since 1992 is an illustration of that consistency and excellence. They recognized the talent they needed, got it, and built around it for the past 30 years. It's how you win in the NFL long-term. Having 2 upper echelon, Hall of Fame QBs like Favre and Rodgers in a row is unprecedented in pro football.

Consistency for 100 seasons... 31 times won their division, 22 times finished second. 53% of their seasons with either a 1st or 2nd place finish. That's impressive over the course of a century.

And to answer "Is there anything for the wife to do?" I got plenty for the wife to do.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Maybe they won't be in Green Bay forever but like Steely's mentioned elsewhere, the Packers are Wisconsin's team. Hard to go anywhere in that state without seeing dark green and gold.

In addition to the unique ownership situation, I also wonder if their national following helps keep them in Green Bay? I know way too many people, even in Arizona, who make the pilgrimage to Lambeau at some point in their lives. I'd reckon they're at least in the top five of NFL teams with a national following?

Definitely Wisconsin's team and hard to imagine them anywhere else. But also hard to imagine a pro sports franchise more vulnerable than the Packers should the market for pro football change. But the NFL's revenue sharing agreement is probably more than enough to keep the team solvent for the foreseeable future.

[Steely Dan]

Considering the fact that the Packers play in, BY FAR, the smallest MSA in all of professional sports, yet have a team valuation that ranks 13th out if the NFL's 32 teams, I don't think their fiscal solvency is in serious jeopardy.