7 ms·

The Packers are the only publicly owned, non-profit team in the league [0]. They are effectively privately held shares: you can't sell them (you can gift them t

The Packers are the only publicly owned, non-profit team in the league [0]. They are effectively privately held shares: you can't sell them (you can gift them to family members only), you get no dividends, you get no rights except the ability to vote. It's the only reason the Packers are still in Green Bay: to move or sell, you'd have to convince 350,000 die hard Packers fans to vote in favor of a move/sale. It's one of my favorite stocks: I never have to worry if the value is going up or down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc.

makomk 9y ago
It was so effective at stopping anyone from buying up and moving the team, that the NFL banned any other teams from structuring their ownership this way. Which says something about who the game's really for I guess.
dalbasal 9y ago
Fantasic example, exactly the type of alternative structures that could make sense in artificial markets. I didn't know about this. One bit I'd nitpick is restricting the mission to non profit. Profits could still be good, if shareholders have the right to decide what to do with them. Non profit structures force you into spending "above the line" which muddles things by design. Having a profit is a useful health check, and profits can be spent in a more transparent way. Imagine such a structure owning street level retail real estate, a busy shopping street. Renting at market value to H&M produces more "profit" than renting at reduced prices (or free) to a community op shop. There's a trade-off that the "owners" might make, if they would like to buy more real estate or whatnot.
- erichurkman 9y ago
  Any profits fund charities in the state of Wisconsin - and they have a rotating set of causes they work with each year. Last year I think it was senior citizen care, next year it's alcohol and drug rehabilitation.

makomk 9y ago

It was so effective at stopping anyone from buying up and moving the team, that the NFL banned any other teams from structuring their ownership this way. Which says something about who the game's really for I guess.

dalbasal 9y ago

Fantasic example, exactly the type of alternative structures that could make sense in artificial markets. I didn't know about this. One bit I'd nitpick is restricting the mission to non profit. Profits could still be good, if shareholders have the right to decide what to do with them. Non profit structures force you into spending "above the line" which muddles things by design. Having a profit is a useful health check, and profits can be spent in a more transparent way. Imagine such a structure owning street level retail real estate, a busy shopping street. Renting at market value to H&M produces more "profit" than renting at reduced prices (or free) to a community op shop. There's a trade-off that the "owners" might make, if they would like to buy more real estate or whatnot.

erichurkman 9y ago
Any profits fund charities in the state of Wisconsin - and they have a rotating set of causes they work with each year. Last year I think it was senior citizen care, next year it's alcohol and drug rehabilitation.