PDA

View Full Version : New Ownership scheme for Sox


DumpJerry
10-16-2004, 12:01 PM
Ok, most (but not all) of us want to see JR gone from the scene. We've have threads and postings about who we would like to see as the new owner. However, I think it is futile to wish upon a star for a Messiah to come along and buy the team from JR and hire the WSI membership as co-General Managers. Just because a guy like a Cuban or Colangelo comes along with a ton of $$ and a desire to win (nobody ever got rich with a desire to lose, including JR), does not mean he will be willing to really do what it takes to make us the #1 baseball team in Chicago and the AL.

Here is my proposal. We become the Green Bay Packers. No, I'm not talking about making our fans put food products on their heads, wear a hideous color combination and act like possessed Flub fans. No, I'm talking about their ownership scheme. Know who owns the Pack? The people of Green Bay do! I don't know all the technical details, but the people of Green Bay are able to buy shares in the team and they elect a management team to run the team. That is why the team has remained in a minuscule market all these years. The people of Green Bay would have to approve a franchise move. Given the general on-field success of the team (current season excepted), I would say this works real well. It not only creates a stable franchise, but the fan base has more than emotion invested in the team.

Now....let's imagine a world where the Sox are owned by the fans. No more JR. No more threats to move (which has not happened since the approval came to build the current stadium, but could happen again as it did in 1979 which resulted in JR taking over the team), no more deaf ears at the front office about what we, the fans (i.e. customers) want in terms of team make-up and general team image.

Imagine this too: Flub fans. While they buy all the blue s**t they want, there is no return on their purchase. When we buy a Sox shirt, we get a return on our investment in the team. When a Flub accuses you of being a fair weather fan, your response is "I'm an owner. You're a paying customer. The Tribune Company thanks you for your patronage. The same Tribune Company that will gladly broker you a marked-up ticket."

One final thought: When Jr and Einhorn bought the team, they had an informal sit down with local sports writers to get acquainted. Jerome Holtzman then wrote we need to be worried, very worried about these guys. The reason? They talked about how they felt when the Dodgers left Brooklyn. JR and EE were from Brooklyn. Holtzman pointed out that these guys were not life-long Sox fans, they had no emotional loyalty to the team, no sense of history. If WE owned the team, the owners would love the team like our own children.

Does anyone know more specifics of how the Packer scheme works? Is it something that can be implemented in a large metro area?w If so, how do we go about it? Of course, the big issue is prying the Sox from JR's hands.......

LongLiveFisk
10-16-2004, 12:52 PM
I like your idea and I agree with it, but I have posted pretty much the same in the past here at WSI and was told (I don't remember by whom) that having ownership comprised solely of fans is no longer allowed in sports. I think the Packers had their system in place before this rule came down so they were allowed to keep it intact, but you probably won't see anything like it again in the future.

Just my novice two cents, as I admittedly have limited knowledge about the financial aspects of sports.

JKryl
10-16-2004, 01:23 PM
Well, I married a wonderful cheesehead, so I go up there once in a while, and from what I was told, Green Bay sold stock one share at a time. In other words, no one could buy more than one share. This meant that they brought in a lot of money, and lost none of the authority necessary to run the team. Also, from what I understand, they have only sold out 40% or so of the worth of the team. This way, even if someone rounded up several thousand shares, they could easily vote the guy down.

Actually, this does sound like something JR might like. Come on to WSI, sell a bunch of stock to the die hard fans, and laugh all the way to the bank! Oops, he's doing that already.

Ol' No. 2
10-16-2004, 02:52 PM
Well, I married a wonderful cheesehead, so I go up there once in a while, and from what I was told, Green Bay sold stock one share at a time. In other words, no one could buy more than one share. This meant that they brought in a lot of money, and lost none of the authority necessary to run the team. Also, from what I understand, they have only sold out 40% or so of the worth of the team. This way, even if someone rounded up several thousand shares, they could easily vote the guy down.

Actually, this does sound like something JR might like. Come on to WSI, sell a bunch of stock to the die hard fans, and laugh all the way to the bank! Oops, he's doing that already.Nice fantasy. Now for the reality. The other owners would have to approve it. You have better odds buying lottery tickets and hoping to win the money to buy the team yourself.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-17-2004, 09:51 AM
Nice fantasy. Now for the reality. The other owners would have to approve it. You have better odds buying lottery tickets and hoping to win the money to buy the team yourself.Point well taken. The MLB owners would never approve public ownership of a baseball franchise because it would threaten their own existence. The only reason the NFL ever allowed the City of Green Bay to buy the Packers is because the league was weak, the franchise in receivership, and the future prospects bleak for the entire league. Even the prosperous NFL of today would never allow another publicly-owned team.

Before we go too far down this ridiculously stupid Lenin & Marx-inspired primrose path regarding the basic good of public ownership, let me state unequivocally city ownership of the Packers has very little to do with their relative success. In fact, the team has been a doormat for most of its existence. Thank Vince Lombardi and Brett Favre for making todays fans believe the myth about the frozen tundra and all that other b.s. Berman spouts every Sunday on ESPN.

What has helped the Packers far more than public ownership is the revenue-sharing (i.e. socialist) policies of the NFL. Unlike baseball, it hardly matters whether you play your games in the Meadowlands of New Jersey or the cow pastures of northern Wisconsin. Your franchise gets the exact same slice of the NFL's national TV deal. You're guaranteed a profit before the first regulation football is pumped full of air. In fact you're guaranteed the same profit regardless of which team you own or where you play your games.

It's precisely this sort of guarantee that Jerry Reinsdorf has been pursuing for the last 24 seasons. He hasn't gotten it and that's why he never makes a full effort towards fielding a champion... at least not since 1985.

:reinsy
"If only the union had backed down in '94 we would've won it all!"

And before any of you budding socialists think MLB ought to institute similar revenue sharing, be careful what you wish for. The White Sox franchise would cease to exist. That's because there is no good reason to have a second banana franchise in the #3 market. Reinsdorf (or a new owner) would move the Sox to some stupid little town offering the moon and stars on local revenue-- some cow pasture equivalent to Green Bay.

The reason is simple. Once MLB has revenue sharing, playing in Chicago becomes meaningless. If you don't believe me, go ask all the football fans in LA about the Rams and the Raiders -- now playing in tiny towns half the size of the one they left. What is GREAT for Green Bay's fans equals HORSE**** for Chicago's.

That's why I always laugh at these threads. People who start them have NO CLUE what they are talking about. I care more about the CHICAGO White Sox than Jerry Reinsdorf's bottom line.

:smokin:

johnny_mostil
10-17-2004, 11:54 AM
Here's some more reality. Public ownership is not allowed in baseball, if memory
serves me correctly I once heard that. The only team in MLB which is partially
owned by the city is the Cleveland Indians, and they were grandfathered
in when the rule was passed. I could be wrong, because I read it only once,
I don't remember where.
At one point not long ago the Indians were a public company, ticker symbol CLEV. You could actually check out their finances.