Packers 2024-25 Season Thread

At the end of the day the org is a nonprofit, there is no owner making bank off the team and the money that the team makes goes back into the team through development or back into the community. That’s by law, they have to. The political leaders in GB are progressive and are trying to run a for-profit smear campaign against the org and it doesn’t hold water, this isn’t the Raiders or the Rams trying to extort the city for tax breaks so their team owner can profit. It’s the golden goose, don’t be stupid (but they just might be stupid )
 
rpiotr01 said:
At the end of the day the org is a nonprofit, there is no owner making bank off the team and the money that the team makes goes back into the team through development or back into the community. That’s by law, they have to. The political leaders in GB are progressive and are trying to run a for-profit smear campaign against the org and it doesn’t hold water, this isn’t the Raiders or the Rams trying to extort the city for tax breaks so their team owner can profit. It’s the golden goose, don’t be stupid (but they just might be stupid )
Click to expand...
They're stupid
 
rpiotr01 said:
At the end of the day the org is a nonprofit, there is no owner making bank off the team and the money that the team makes goes back into the team through development or back into the community. That’s by law, they have to. The political leaders in GB are progressive and are trying to run a for-profit smear campaign against the org and it doesn’t hold water, this isn’t the Raiders or the Rams trying to extort the city for tax breaks so their team owner can profit. It’s the golden goose, don’t be stupid (but they just might be stupid )
Click to expand...
yeah. i was going to mention that they are a non-profit, and technically they are, but they do have revenue that exceeds expenses. but the organization plows those excess revenues back into the community in ways that generates more tax revenues for the city. do you seriously believe that there would be a world-class medical clinic or a high-end hotel right there if not for title-town? the packers enabled that. the city benefits from sales taxes and tot (room) taxes. the packers took care of a sizable chunk of redevelopment for the city without a dime of public money being spent.
 
So, exactly who owns the land that the Heritage Trail is on? If it's the city, it's theirs to do as they choose. The Heritage Trail group is associated with the Packers, but that doesn't show ownership.

I think it's stupid to do away with it as it stands. It's something inherent to the Packers, and part of the mystique that surrounds the team. You shouldn't destroy it.

When comments are made that it's progressives who are doing this, what does that mean? It sounds like a political statement to me. I'd hope that the people making the decisions in the city were actually representing what the majority of the residents want, and not a political, or personal agenda.

My thoughts? I think they should put it on a referendum for the spring elections in the city. That's where the decision should be made "if" the city owns the land. Hopefully the people of the city will support keeping it, but unless we live in the city, we don't really know how deep of a division there is over the issues presently on the table.
 
TW said:
So, exactly who owns the land that the Heritage Trail is on? If it's the city, it's theirs to do as they choose. The Heritage Trail group is associated with the Packers, but that doesn't show ownership.

I think it's stupid to do away with it as it stands. It's something inherent to the Packers, and part of the mystique that surrounds the team. You shouldn't destroy it.

When comments are made that it's progressives who are doing this, what does that mean? It sounds like a political statement to me. I'd hope that the people making the decisions in the city were actually representing what the majority of the residents want, and not a political, or personal agenda.

My thoughts? I think they should put it on a referendum for the spring elections in the city. That's where the decision should be made "if" the city owns the land. Hopefully the people of the city will support keeping it, but unless we live in the city, we don't really know how deep of a division there is over the issues presently on the table.
Click to expand...
City owns the land but the Foundation fund raised $1 million dollars to develop it to what it is. There was also a legal agreement that both sides had to agree on moving it one side just can't do it themselves. The former mayor who worked with the team over a decade ago to create this even said it should stay in place. This is just petty Mayor McCheese trying to take a shot at the Packers. The city is pretty much trying to illegally move this when they had agreed both sides would have to do it.
 
GBP4EVER said:
City owns the land but the Foundation fund raised $1 million dollars to develop it to what it is. There was also a legal agreement that both sides had to agree on moving it one side just can't do it themselves. The former mayor who worked with the team over a decade ago to create this even said it should stay in place. This is just petty Mayor McCheese trying to take a shot at the Packers. The city is pretty much trying to illegally move this when they had agreed both sides would have to do it.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to say it's illegal. I think that would be determined by a court. But, we always have to remember that in the end, the city can win, no matter what you do. It's called imminent domain. They invoked it to help the Packers gain access to properties where the owners did not want to sell, and now it could come back in the opposite direction I'd guess, if the Heritage Trail Group tried to establish their rights as to governance over it.

If the people of Green Bay are unhappy with the direction their elected officials are taking them, they can boot them out in elections, or get enough names on a petition, to call for a special election, to remove them from office, then hold special elections.

Based on the fact I haven't heard about any ground swell of concern from the citizens at this point, I'm not certain what they're thinking in regards to the situation.

I think this will be an ongoing argument well into next year, and when the new President takes the helm of the Packers.
 
rpiotr01 said:
the colts are tough but the 49ers are weak?
Click to expand...
look at their records. the 49ers suck this year. it's all based on how they are playing this year. without cmc, the 49ers are not good and their record over the last 5 games is 2-3 (2-4 over the last 6). indy, on the other hand, is 4-3 and has won 4 of their last 5 games. hope that helps.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top