Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, November 02, 2011

Greta Van Susteren: Sell the LA Dodgers to the people – like the Green Bay Packers!

And give them a complete orthognathiccup makeover while you’re at it!

The LA Dodgers are for sale – the victims of a rich guy’s messy finances and even messier divorce. So? How about offering them first to the community rather than have some rich guy scooping them up? The Green Bay Packers don’t have a single owner but instead millions of us. Shares cost $200 and all you get are bragging rights but it sure is fun to brag and say “I am an owner.” When I cheer for the Packers, I don’t cheer for some rich guy’s team, I cheer for my own team. I don’t live in LA but I would buy a share of the Dodgers so I could also own a baseball team. I bet many of you would buy a share, too. It really enhances the franchise to have the community own the team rather than one single person. I think it would help the franchise. Why not try it? We know it works since it has worked so well in Green Bay. Use Green Bay as a model.

Repoz Posted: November 02, 2011 at 01:40 PM | 32 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: announcers, business, dodgers, media, television

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. BobT Posted: November 02, 2011 at 01:57 PM (#3984900)
Typical Packers stockholders mix:
CEO: Do you think we should give Aaron Rodgers a contract extension?
Stockholders human mic: DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD GIVE AARON RODGERS A CONTRACT EXTENSION
CEO: Well, should we?
Stockholders: WELL, SHOULD WE?
CEO: Make a decision
(Stockholders wave hands in the air)
   2. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: November 02, 2011 at 02:07 PM (#3984909)
That would require the Dodgers' books to be open to the public, right?

There's your answer right there.
   3. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 02, 2011 at 02:08 PM (#3984911)
Use Green Bay as a model.

I like the idea, but it would require a level of transparency that would terrify Selig and the other owners. So...it will never happen.

edit: cokes and such
   4. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 02, 2011 at 02:11 PM (#3984912)
This sounds a bit too socialist for a FOX NEWS commentator.

Also, public ownership is against MLB by-laws. Its against NFL by-laws too, but the Packers were grandfathered in.
   5. Traderdave Posted: November 02, 2011 at 02:12 PM (#3984914)
The Indians were a public company for a few years, and the shares were tradable unlike the Packers'.

I don't recall there being much issue with financial disclosure, but then again, I wasn't wasting time on BTF then....
   6. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: November 02, 2011 at 02:19 PM (#3984921)
I wonder how common the public-ownership approach is in the minors? It's been in place for the (Fellow) Travelers in the People's Republic of Little Rock since I was an infant. Per its website, the team is

owned by Arkansas Travelers Baseball Inc., which was formed in 1960 when Ray Winder led a public stock drive to purchase the New Orleans franchise for a move to Little Rock. The Travs have operated under this ownership structure ever since.

Each share of stock in the Arkansas Travelers is worth $5; the same as its original 1960 price. The stock's price never fluctuates, and all dividends are pledged back to the Travelers for operation of Dickey-Stephens Park.

There are approximately 2,800 stockholders amongst the ownership and the Travs do not accept public requests for stock ownership.
   7. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 02, 2011 at 02:21 PM (#3984924)

The Indians were a public company for a few years, and the shares were tradable unlike the Packers'.

I don't recall there being much issue with financial disclosure, but then again, I wasn't wasting time on BTF then....


Perhaps minority shares are allowed to be public, but the I think you still need a singular majority owner.

I mean Bud doesn't even like it when you have too many rich people as minority investors, I don't think he'd go for a thousand regular Joes.


I wonder how common the public-ownership approach is in the minors? It's been in place for the (Fellow) Travelers in the People's Republic of Little Rock since I was an infant. Per its website, the team is


I don't know how common it is, but when the Wichita Wranglers were going to relocate, they had a clause that required them to be offered for sale to the city of Wichita. The city refused and the club relocated to Springdale, Arkansas.
   8. Craig in MN Posted: November 02, 2011 at 02:24 PM (#3984927)

Typical Packers stockholders mix:
CEO: Do you think we should give Aaron Rodgers a contract extension?
Stockholders human mic: DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD GIVE AARON RODGERS A CONTRACT EXTENSION
CEO: Well, should we?
Stockholders: WELL, SHOULD WE?
CEO: Make a decision
(Stockholders wave hands in the air)


Awesome. Actually, the problem with the Dodger shareholder meetings would be that no one would show until it was 1/3 over and everyone would leave before the voting happens.
   9. Traderdave Posted: November 02, 2011 at 02:47 PM (#3984957)
I mean Bud doesn't even like it when you have too many rich people as minority investors, I don't think he'd go for a thousand regular Joes.


I was actually working in Cleveland (City of Light, City of Magic) when the shares were sold. It was a standard IPO, albeit with a mostly retail investor base. At the time it seemed like everyone in town bought a piece.

I don't recall the ownership structure (I've tried to forget my years in Cleveland) but *think* it may have been an LP with Jacobs remaining as GP, or some such other 2 tiered structure. I recall reading the OS at the time & being pleasantly surprised by the level & amount of disclosure, but again, memory is hazy.

In any case, while I'm sure Selig disliked the idea, it did go forward.

Anyone with a clearer memory on this deal?
   10. zachtoma Posted: November 02, 2011 at 02:53 PM (#3984958)
Cleveland (City of Light, City of Magic)


Cleveland (even now, I can remember, cause the Cuyahoga river, goes smokin' through my dreams)
   11. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 02, 2011 at 02:55 PM (#3984961)
The Packers are not really publicly owned. The stock has no value. Shareholders have no real voting rights.
   12. Lunkus Posted: November 02, 2011 at 03:20 PM (#3984979)
I'm against this. The new owners will undoubtedly want to move the Dodgers to Green Bay.
   13. TerpNats Posted: November 02, 2011 at 03:29 PM (#3984989)
Cleveland (City of Light, City of Magic)

Cleveland (even now, I can remember, cause the Cuyahoga river, goes smokin' through my dreams)
Burn on, big river, burn on.
   14. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: November 02, 2011 at 03:32 PM (#3984992)
The Packers are not really publicly owned. The stock has no value. Shareholders have no real voting rights.


Occupy Lombardi Avenue!
   15. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2011 at 03:34 PM (#3984995)
But they get to tour Lambeau Field!
   16. zonk Posted: November 02, 2011 at 03:46 PM (#3985004)
The Packers are not really publicly owned. The stock has no value. Shareholders have no real voting rights.


From what I've read, most shareholders have no real voting rights when it comes to publicly owned companies anyway.
   17. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: November 02, 2011 at 03:53 PM (#3985009)
Wait, I agree with her on something? Man. Maybe we aren't all so different after all...
   18. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: November 02, 2011 at 03:56 PM (#3985014)
Wait, I agree with her on something? Man. Maybe we aren't all so different after all...


It's a trap!
   19. Greg K Posted: November 02, 2011 at 03:57 PM (#3985016)
The Saskatchewan Roughriders have a similar arrangement I believe.

I've never quite understood how English club football ownership works. They have owners in the same sense as North American sports, but the owner doesn't have the ability to pick up and move? (Aside from MK Dons)
   20. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 02, 2011 at 04:02 PM (#3985021)
I've never quite understood how English club football ownership works. They have owners in the same sense as North American sports, but the owner doesn't have the ability to pick up and move? (Aside from MK Dons)

I think that they do, but where would any English team move to? That is one saturated market. Also, the clubs are so fiercely identified with a particular locale, they would lose a lot of their support if they moved (see the contoversy about Spurs moving from North London to East London). Anyway, the whole "franchise" thing is incredibly controversial in England and you bring it up at your peril. The important thing to remember is that sports franchises should be like any other aspect of modern American life--those with the cash should rule us with an iron fist for our own good. Now get a job you hippies!
   21. Greg K Posted: November 02, 2011 at 04:09 PM (#3985026)
Anyway, the whole "franchise" thing is incredibly controversial in England and you bring it up at your peril.

I was at the pub with an English friend of mine on Saturday and made the mistake of saying that in FIFA 11 I was playing a game with Notts County "as my franchise". He gave me the friendly advice to never, ever, EVER use that word in an English pub again.
   22. Swedish Chef Posted: November 02, 2011 at 04:10 PM (#3985029)
They have owners in the same sense as North American sports, but the owner doesn't have the ability to pick up and move?

It differs in the leagues has a very hands-off attitude to whom are allowed to take over clubs, taken to its extreme in Leeds' and Notts County's wholly fictional ownership*. Also, the only way to squeeze a profit out of most of the teams is asset stripping. Also, Peter Ridsdale is considered to be a fit and proper person.

*) Leeds was owned by something that was absolutely not Ken Bates, no further details. Notts County was subject to a faked foreign takeover, leading to Sven-Göran Eriksson's most embarrassing moment**.

**) Somebody should make a definite top 50 list of his embarrassing moments.
   23. Shock Posted: November 02, 2011 at 04:31 PM (#3985044)


Also, public ownership is against MLB by-laws. Its against NFL by-laws too, but the Packers were grandfathered in.


Don't let the fact that it's impossible ruin a column topic!
   24. Traderdave Posted: November 02, 2011 at 05:06 PM (#3985061)
If public ownership is contrary to MLB by-laws, how was Cleveland able to do it?
   25. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: November 02, 2011 at 05:10 PM (#3985063)
If public ownership is contrary to MLB by-laws, how was Cleveland able to do it?


By going the anarchist commune route, of course.

Duh.
   26. aleskel Posted: November 02, 2011 at 06:14 PM (#3985106)
By going the anarchist commune route, of course.

Didn't know we had a king, I thought we were an autonomous collective.
   27. Greg K Posted: November 02, 2011 at 06:19 PM (#3985111)
Didn't know we had a king, I thought we were an autonomous collective.

You're fooling yourself.
   28. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 02, 2011 at 06:22 PM (#3985113)
If public ownership is contrary to MLB by-laws, how was Cleveland able to do it?


I'm guessing its okay so long as you have a singular majority owner. AFAIK, the Packers don't have that.

IIRC Joan Kroc tried to bequeath the Padres to the city of San Diego, but MLB said no.

In 1961, Major League Baseball passed a resolution forbidding public ownership of teams. Congressional legislation is needed to remove the restriction and make it possible for fans to join together to purchase the team, said Hahn.
   29. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: November 02, 2011 at 06:30 PM (#3985116)
You're fooling yourself.

Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing free agent contracts is no basis for a system of baseball excellence! Solid starting rotations derive from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic stock exchange.

You can't expect to find quality young infielders just 'cause some watery tart threw an option at you!

I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an MLB owner, just because some moistened bink had lobbed a stock certificate at me, they'd put me away!
   30. phredbird Posted: November 02, 2011 at 07:43 PM (#3985153)
29, excellent. but i believe the word is 'bint'.
   31. jwb Posted: November 03, 2011 at 12:21 AM (#3985399)
Also, public ownership is against MLB by-laws.
And you're expecting Fox's legal correspondent to know about rules and stuff?
   32. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: November 03, 2011 at 12:31 AM (#3985410)
but i believe the word is 'bint'.

D'oh.

I knew I should have spent more time in school studying foreign languages.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2329 - 5:50pm, Apr 23)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(180 - 5:49pm, Apr 23)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(178 - 5:49pm, Apr 23)
Last: Yeaarrgghhhh

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4/23/2014
(77 - 5:48pm, Apr 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogMLB takes a swing at the video game business
(21 - 5:44pm, Apr 23)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

NewsblogDoyel: How was Gerrit Cole not suspended? He basically started the brawl
(12 - 5:41pm, Apr 23)
Last: ellsbury my heart at wounded knee

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(493 - 5:37pm, Apr 23)
Last: Darkness and the howling fantods

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-23-2014
(8 - 5:36pm, Apr 23)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogThe Five “Acts” of Ike Davis’s Career, and Why Trading Ike Was a Mistake
(43 - 5:31pm, Apr 23)
Last: thetailor

NewsblogRoyals G.M. Dayton Moore believes hitting will come around
(17 - 5:28pm, Apr 23)
Last: Shibal

Newsblog4 balls, you’re out!
(43 - 5:06pm, Apr 23)
Last: A triple short of the cycle

NewsblogMike Trout And Bryce Harper Are Baseball’s Best Young Position-Player Duo Ever
(16 - 5:03pm, Apr 23)
Last: Steve Treder

NewsblogThe rise and fall of Ike Davis' New York Mets | Capital New York
(25 - 5:03pm, Apr 23)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogTwo Brewers, two Pirates suspended for fracas | MLB.com: News
(17 - 4:33pm, Apr 23)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(196 - 4:15pm, Apr 23)
Last: Fear is Moses Taylor's Bacon Bits

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.4729 seconds
52 querie(s) executed