4 ms·

I think it’s just the start, soon there will be a much larger paradigm shift. Especially in tech where there is generally a large community of supporters who a

I think it’s just the start, soon there will be a much larger paradigm shift. Especially in tech where there is generally a large community of supporters who are willing to fund the projects they believe in directly. I think the Green Bay Packers is a perfect example, it’s the only “publicly owned” football team in the NFL and as a result when they need funding for large projects (like stadium renovations) they go straight to their community supporters with “public offerings of Packers stock”...which isn’t really stock at all but a certificate and small voice in corporate governance (ie election of a small number of directors). It’s so successful of a legal structure the NFL publicly takes the position they are at a competitive advantage to the other teams which are owned by billionaires. There is no reason Startup’s shouldn’t look at the same model and cut out all VCs, incubators, etc...

sflanagan 8y ago
Who makes money off of the Packers? Startups may not be willing to take this model on if its less profitable for founders
- hsk0823 8y ago
  The organization does, it's a non profit, it gets reinvested into the team coffers to be spent. There's no dividend or anything like that.
- will_brown 8y ago
  Packers are nonprofit but there are other sports teams/organizations that have similar public offerings to raise funds/capital that are for profit entities.
  - hsk0823 8y ago
    You keep calling it a public offering, but the reality is, a public offering is selling parts of your company for cash, aka a stock, ownership has it's privileges, without those privileges, you aren't selling anything to the public, the public is giving you money in return for a piece of paper and a fuzzy good feeling inside. I don't invest to get a fuzzy good feeling inside. I donate for that. Donations are not investments. They're expenses. Investments must have a return of some monetary vale, or else it's an expense.
    - will_brown 8y ago
      I call it a public offering because it is a public offering ...according to the Packers and according to the SEC. You’re really acting like an authority on “public offerings”, do you think you know more than the SEC about public offerings and they don’t know what one is? I understand your definition, it’s just not the legal definition is all. What’s at odds is Packers “Stock” which isn’t “stock” in the common definition and understanding, but it’s still called stock, it’s just not a security or investment. Have you even seen the Packers Public Offering Document(s) or subscription agreements? Because I’ve never seen a donation/charity issue “public offering documents” or require subscription agreements. Edit: >public offering is selling parts of your company for cash, aka a stock, ownership has it's privileges, without those privileges, you aren't selling anything to the public, You should also really take a look at SEC enforcement actions against ICOs because almost none of them are “stock” nor carry privileges yet are considered public offerings.
hsk0823 8y ago
The Packers model works because it's basically a scam, no one in Green Bay actually has any say over what the Packers do day to day but it feels good for Packer fans to say they own a part of the team. There's emotional buy in, it's not a rationale way to invest your money, and no one lends money with the idea that they're not going to see it again as a business. Community support projects work for Kickstarter or Indiegogo marketing to the general public consumer, that's not the same thing as trying to build a B2B SaaS platform fixing a specific problem marketed at Fortune 500 companies.
- will_brown 8y ago
  The Green Bay Packers are valued at $2.35B...not bad for a non-profit. How is the Packers model a scam? Because people support it and don’t get profits? Does that make the 90% of VC funded startups that fail scams? Are other NFL teams that are privately owned scams, because as I said the NFL publicly acknowledges the Packers community ownership is a competitive advantage over the other teams. Sure maybe people won’t directly support your b2b software application marketed at Fortune 500 companies, but as a counter example many of the next fourtune 500 companies could easily adopt a community ownership model in a similar fashion as the Packers (only for profit). People like community ownership and governance...there are many examples beyond the Packers to establish that. People don’t necessarily like the VC model and having to take money from wealthy people who take a chunk of your company just to compete on a level playing field.
  - hsk0823 8y ago
    It's a scam because the equity have any decision making power. It's still controlled by a small group of people aka the board of directors, the stock structure is setup that fans could not mount a hostile takeover. It's called ownership, but it's not, it has no value, it cannot ever be sold back, it doesn't grant you any say over how the team operates. The Packers are not a community owned organization, it's operates no different than any other NFL team, decisions are not made by the fans. The Packers aren't really community owned organization, a real community owned organization whose members have actual power over the organization. Those are very few and far between, are generally non profits, and in the end, no ability for outside investors to get the profits they're looking for, thus they won't bother to invest. You hear from time to time small to mid sized business that are "employees owned and operated" but that doesn't mean every employee has the same equity, the generally ownership will have the largest stake anyway with employees having very little control or equity compared to ownership
tyre 8y ago
This is what Wefunder (YC W13) does with equity crowdfunding. It's great for companies that have passionate user bases. Even if the individual check size is small (e.g. min $100), it's a great for users who want to be part of something and great for companies who don't have to go to VC + can grow their user base. The primary downside for startups is the cap table, but there's regulation in the works (already passed the House with near-unanimous bi-partisan support, waiting on the shutdown shitshow so the Senate can vote) to fix that. Disclosure—I work at Wefunder, both on crowdfunding and very early cohorts (https://xx.team https://xx.team)
- will_brown 8y ago
  While the concepts are similar, there is a legal difference between equity crowd funding (presumably under the JOBS Act) and a a non-security instrument Public Offering exempt from securities laws (ie Packers Stock or similar)

sflanagan 8y ago

Who makes money off of the Packers? Startups may not be willing to take this model on if its less profitable for founders

hsk0823 8y ago
The organization does, it's a non profit, it gets reinvested into the team coffers to be spent. There's no dividend or anything like that.
will_brown 8y ago
Packers are nonprofit but there are other sports teams/organizations that have similar public offerings to raise funds/capital that are for profit entities.
- hsk0823 8y ago
  You keep calling it a public offering, but the reality is, a public offering is selling parts of your company for cash, aka a stock, ownership has it's privileges, without those privileges, you aren't selling anything to the public, the public is giving you money in return for a piece of paper and a fuzzy good feeling inside. I don't invest to get a fuzzy good feeling inside. I donate for that. Donations are not investments. They're expenses. Investments must have a return of some monetary vale, or else it's an expense.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    I call it a public offering because it is a public offering ...according to the Packers and according to the SEC. You’re really acting like an authority on “public offerings”, do you think you know more than the SEC about public offerings and they don’t know what one is? I understand your definition, it’s just not the legal definition is all. What’s at odds is Packers “Stock” which isn’t “stock” in the common definition and understanding, but it’s still called stock, it’s just not a security or investment. Have you even seen the Packers Public Offering Document(s) or subscription agreements? Because I’ve never seen a donation/charity issue “public offering documents” or require subscription agreements. Edit: >public offering is selling parts of your company for cash, aka a stock, ownership has it's privileges, without those privileges, you aren't selling anything to the public, You should also really take a look at SEC enforcement actions against ICOs because almost none of them are “stock” nor carry privileges yet are considered public offerings.

hsk0823 8y ago

The Packers model works because it's basically a scam, no one in Green Bay actually has any say over what the Packers do day to day but it feels good for Packer fans to say they own a part of the team. There's emotional buy in, it's not a rationale way to invest your money, and no one lends money with the idea that they're not going to see it again as a business. Community support projects work for Kickstarter or Indiegogo marketing to the general public consumer, that's not the same thing as trying to build a B2B SaaS platform fixing a specific problem marketed at Fortune 500 companies.

will_brown 8y ago
The Green Bay Packers are valued at $2.35B...not bad for a non-profit. How is the Packers model a scam? Because people support it and don’t get profits? Does that make the 90% of VC funded startups that fail scams? Are other NFL teams that are privately owned scams, because as I said the NFL publicly acknowledges the Packers community ownership is a competitive advantage over the other teams. Sure maybe people won’t directly support your b2b software application marketed at Fortune 500 companies, but as a counter example many of the next fourtune 500 companies could easily adopt a community ownership model in a similar fashion as the Packers (only for profit). People like community ownership and governance...there are many examples beyond the Packers to establish that. People don’t necessarily like the VC model and having to take money from wealthy people who take a chunk of your company just to compete on a level playing field.
- hsk0823 8y ago
  It's a scam because the equity have any decision making power. It's still controlled by a small group of people aka the board of directors, the stock structure is setup that fans could not mount a hostile takeover. It's called ownership, but it's not, it has no value, it cannot ever be sold back, it doesn't grant you any say over how the team operates. The Packers are not a community owned organization, it's operates no different than any other NFL team, decisions are not made by the fans. The Packers aren't really community owned organization, a real community owned organization whose members have actual power over the organization. Those are very few and far between, are generally non profits, and in the end, no ability for outside investors to get the profits they're looking for, thus they won't bother to invest. You hear from time to time small to mid sized business that are "employees owned and operated" but that doesn't mean every employee has the same equity, the generally ownership will have the largest stake anyway with employees having very little control or equity compared to ownership

tyre 8y ago

This is what Wefunder (YC W13) does with equity crowdfunding. It's great for companies that have passionate user bases. Even if the individual check size is small (e.g. min $100), it's a great for users who want to be part of something and great for companies who don't have to go to VC + can grow their user base. The primary downside for startups is the cap table, but there's regulation in the works (already passed the House with near-unanimous bi-partisan support, waiting on the shutdown shitshow so the Senate can vote) to fix that. Disclosure—I work at Wefunder, both on crowdfunding and very early cohorts (https://xx.team https://xx.team)

will_brown 8y ago
While the concepts are similar, there is a legal difference between equity crowd funding (presumably under the JOBS Act) and a a non-security instrument Public Offering exempt from securities laws (ie Packers Stock or similar)