3 ms·

Crowd-buying a sports team (awesome concept)

3 points by transburgh 19y ago

dpapathanasiou 19y ago
It's been tried before, unsuccessfully so far: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/28/love.the.jets.idg/index.html http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/28/love.the.jets.idg/...
- transburgh 19y ago
  This is more realistic. They dont need $500 million (as stated in your link) to buy a team. If you look at the numbers involved it is much more attainable.
  - dpapathanasiou 19y ago
    I think it's less to do with the amount than post-sale management/operational issues. Imagine the debate over whether or not to sign a particular player, e.g. Still, it's an idea with appeal: it would be great to be a part-owner of my favorite teams.
    - transburgh 19y ago
      Everything is based on majority vote. With over 50,000 voting members there is enough critical mass that it would be hard to sway the results for political reasons.
      - dpapathanasiou 19y ago
        That might work, if you limit each person to one share of the team (there might be other rules needed, too). Where it would break down is if a handful of people owned most of the shares, leading to factional in-fighting. Most of the leagues (like the NFL in the Jets case), though, don't like this kind of ownership structure. Do you think this group, if it can raise the cash, would be approved?
        transburgh 19y ago
        I'm actually a member of the group. Each person has only one vote. The group has already been through all the legal entities in England and has been approached by 4 teams that are interested in the investment.
        dpapathanasiou 19y ago
        Well, good luck with it. If you're successful, I'll hit you up for luxury suite tickets when I'm in the UK ;)
run4yourlives 19y ago
This wisdom of the crowd's stuff shouldn't be taken so far. Democracy works in two ways: 1. It eliminates the extreme options. 2. It's designed to ensure representation, not perfomance. When you look at things that have been designed by committee, you're looking - at best - at mediocrity. This is a good thing when you don't want government performing too well in the wrong direction, but it's a hindrance if you are trying to establish peak performance. Sports teams are looking for peak performance. The best way to achieve this is to install a knowledgeable dictator. The risk is that the dictator will make the wrong calls. It's a lot like business. Which is why public companies never innovate. So, even if this flies, the team will be mired in being average. Never winning, never losing. Success would be solely dependent on the oddity of a year that the mediocre prevail. To me, that defeats the whole purpose for having a team in the first place.

3 points by transburgh 19y ago

It's been tried before, unsuccessfully so far: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/28/love.the.jets.idg/index.html http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/28/love.the.jets.idg/...

transburgh 19y ago
This is more realistic. They dont need $500 million (as stated in your link) to buy a team. If you look at the numbers involved it is much more attainable.
- dpapathanasiou 19y ago
  I think it's less to do with the amount than post-sale management/operational issues. Imagine the debate over whether or not to sign a particular player, e.g. Still, it's an idea with appeal: it would be great to be a part-owner of my favorite teams.
  - transburgh 19y ago
    Everything is based on majority vote. With over 50,000 voting members there is enough critical mass that it would be hard to sway the results for political reasons.
    - dpapathanasiou 19y ago
      That might work, if you limit each person to one share of the team (there might be other rules needed, too). Where it would break down is if a handful of people owned most of the shares, leading to factional in-fighting. Most of the leagues (like the NFL in the Jets case), though, don't like this kind of ownership structure. Do you think this group, if it can raise the cash, would be approved?
      - transburgh 19y ago
        I'm actually a member of the group. Each person has only one vote. The group has already been through all the legal entities in England and has been approached by 4 teams that are interested in the investment.
        dpapathanasiou 19y ago
        Well, good luck with it. If you're successful, I'll hit you up for luxury suite tickets when I'm in the UK ;)

run4yourlives 19y ago

This wisdom of the crowd's stuff shouldn't be taken so far. Democracy works in two ways: 1. It eliminates the extreme options. 2. It's designed to ensure representation, not perfomance. When you look at things that have been designed by committee, you're looking - at best - at mediocrity. This is a good thing when you don't want government performing too well in the wrong direction, but it's a hindrance if you are trying to establish peak performance. Sports teams are looking for peak performance. The best way to achieve this is to install a knowledgeable dictator. The risk is that the dictator will make the wrong calls. It's a lot like business. Which is why public companies never innovate. So, even if this flies, the team will be mired in being average. Never winning, never losing. Success would be solely dependent on the oddity of a year that the mediocre prevail. To me, that defeats the whole purpose for having a team in the first place.