Packers 2024-25 Season Thread

In GB WI? I know you haven't been there in years but the Packers are an economic force in that area, the last dumb@## mayor who tried it got tossed out of their on his butt with most of his clown council. So I am sorry, the Packers have huge leverage there.
So, if they have more leverage than the elected officials, why do the people keep electing "dumb asses" as you put it, who carry on with the same agenda? Obviously the support for the Packers is huge, but when it comes to purse strings, that's a completely different situation. To you, they may be electing clowns, but to the people, they represent what the people say they want. Those people seem to believe that the slate put up by the opposition is the clowns. Not everyone in Green Bay or the surrounding area gives a rat's arse if the Packers even exist. The economic impact for money going into the pockets of those who are reaping the profits doesn't do a darned thing for the people who are still paying taxes.

You're right about me not being there in seven years, but I have a couple of dozen friends who still live there, with their families, and even though they are all Packer fans, the majority of the people they know aren't Packer fans, and some even wish they'd get the H out of town, because they interfere with every day life.

One of my friends, whose family has been season ticket holders since the 30s, has commented more than once that the Packers seem to forget where they come from, and who they are, when they start dictating to the people of the area, how things are going to be done. So, for what it's worth, I'll take his word for it. Green Bay would survive without the Packers, but rest assured, if they lost the support of the tax payers around that area, they'd fold up like a cheap suit. That should be evidenced by the number of people with their Milwaukee packages that sell their tickets to the visiting teams, using the tickets as a money maker, not to enjoy games. You don't alienate your base and get away with it. That's what happened with Milwaukee.
 
The city wants to raise the Packers' rent on grounds that the Packers org is developing the land to make more money for the org, but the Packers aren't actually using any public money for development - what is the mayor's problem here? Furthermore, though the team is making net profits, they are prevented by law from having any individuals gain from that money - it goes into investments back into the stadium, land development, player facilities etc. The city just seems like a jealous, greedy landlord here.
 
So, if they have more leverage than the elected officials, why do the people keep electing "dumb asses" as you put it, who carry on with the same agenda? Obviously the support for the Packers is huge, but when it comes to purse strings, that's a completely different situation. To you, they may be electing clowns, but to the people, they represent what the people say they want. Those people seem to believe that the slate put up by the opposition is the clowns. Not everyone in Green Bay or the surrounding area gives a rat's arse if the Packers even exist. The economic impact for money going into the pockets of those who are reaping the profits doesn't do a darned thing for the people who are still paying taxes.

You're right about me not being there in seven years, but I have a couple of dozen friends who still live there, with their families, and even though they are all Packer fans, the majority of the people they know aren't Packer fans, and some even wish they'd get the H out of town, because they interfere with every day life.

One of my friends, whose family has been season ticket holders since the 30s, has commented more than once that the Packers seem to forget where they come from, and who they are, when they start dictating to the people of the area, how things are going to be done. So, for what it's worth, I'll take his word for it. Green Bay would survive without the Packers, but rest assured, if they lost the support of the tax payers around that area, they'd fold up like a cheap suit. That should be evidenced by the number of people with their Milwaukee packages that sell their tickets to the visiting teams, using the tickets as a money maker, not to enjoy games. You don't alienate your base and get away with it. That's what happened with Milwaukee.
I don't think they alienated the Milwaukee fan base. They had to leave County Stadium it was a dump and not suited to play games at any longer. It was tore down less then a decade after they left there. I think the people who have the Milwaukee package that live down in that area just don't want to often drive 2 hours one way to a game and figure it's easier to make a buck off selling them.

Since the rebuild of Lambeau the area has seen a lot of new buildings and updates. This all is helping the city with more property taxes coming in. There is the old saying don't bite the hand that feeds you. Right now it seems the city wants to take a bite out of the Packers. Without the Packers Green Bay would just be another ho hum city that outside of the state of Wisconsin no one would not know it even existed. The Green Bay area makes 10's of millions of dollars a year based on the Packers. It probably would be the one city that benefits from having a updated stadium around it helping it drive people to games and attend other functions year round.
 
I don't think they alienated the Milwaukee fan base. They had to leave County Stadium it was a dump and not suited to play games at any longer. It was tore down less then a decade after they left there. I think the people who have the Milwaukee package that live down in that area just don't want to often drive 2 hours one way to a game and figure it's easier to make a buck off selling them.

Since the rebuild of Lambeau the area has seen a lot of new buildings and updates. This all is helping the city with more property taxes coming in. There is the old saying don't bite the hand that feeds you. Right now it seems the city wants to take a bite out of the Packers. Without the Packers Green Bay would just be another ho hum city that outside of the state of Wisconsin no one would not know it even existed. The Green Bay area makes 10's of millions of dollars a year based on the Packers. It probably would be the one city that benefits from having a updated stadium around it helping it drive people to games and attend other functions year round.
Milwaukee Packer fans wanted games to continue in Milwaukee. They did not want to have them moved back to Green Bay. To a lot of them, it was like they were being abandoned after helping them make it through tough times. Logistics makes it difficult for a lot of those season ticket holders to make it to games on a regular basis, so they sell their tickets at a hefty price to people from other teams. I can't tell you how much, but I can say just by observation that it's several times more prevalent for those tickets to end up in the hands of fans from outside the Packer sphere than those being sold by Packer fans who have the Green Bay package.

The Mayor of Green Bay, and the bean counters are saying that renegotiation of a lease without better terms would cost the community millions of dollars. I don't doubt that for a moment. With the monumental changes in costs over the last 20 years alone, it's difficult not understanding that a lease needs to be changed to meet the needs on a regular basis.

I'm not saying that Genrich, or anyone else is right or wrong. I totally disagree with him and the council about moving the Heritage Trail. That is totally unacceptable. If I was in GB, and a voter there, I'd definitely be pushing to stop it from happening. But I'm afraid the city and the team have both turned to wanting to try every situation in the court of public opinion, instead of sitting down and hammering out a deal which will benefit both sides.

I have to go back to one prime thing everyone should remember. The Packers are a publicly traded non-profit organization, and they're main purpose of existence is to provide entertainment, and be part of furthering the community. Sometimes I think the organization forgets that's their mission, and begins thinking a little too much like a major corporation that looks at the people as nothing more than worker ants.

Over the years, I've listened to people complain about how Murphy did this and that, changing the way the Packers were run. They voiced displeasure over paying license fees for seats, many losing their season tickets because they couldn't afford to pay it. I wonder just how many fans from over the years when we were perpetual losers, and we put our money into them, to support them, have been alienated? I think it's a lot more than people might imagine.

I don't want to argue this point. I don't agree or disagree with either side. I just think that the Packers are being extremely foolish trying to make this a situation that plays out in the court of public opinion, because the opinions against the city in favor of the Packers, is more from outsiders, not the people of Green Bay. It's obvious how they believe, because they elected these officials, and they pretty much knew what was expected of them.

I'm done! Any further discussion is without me. I've stated my piece. Here's an article from the Press Gazette. It's quite generic, but it gives somewhat of a picture of how things stand.

 

The Packers will be investing $1.5 billion in the stadium. The 30-year lease starts with annual rent of $1 million, with a 2.75 percent annual escalator.

By end of the 30 years Packers in final year will pay $2.25 million for their annual rent.

Though wonder how high ticket prices go now in the future with the team investing that much money into the stadium.
 
Last edited:
Listing of average ticket prices for 2024, all teams. We're #6 as of now.

Which is a far cry for the team saying they want to be around the middle of the league for ticket prices but are almost top 5. But they will still keep increasing ticket prices $5-10 a ticket every year.
 
The Mayor of Green Bay, and the bean counters are saying that renegotiation of a lease without better terms would cost the community millions of dollars. I don't doubt that for a moment. With the monumental changes in costs over the last 20 years alone, it's difficult not understanding that a lease needs to be changed to meet the needs on a regular basis.
And my final response:



The rent is too d@*# high!
 
All rent goes up. Homes that rented for under $1,000 a month in most areas, and often as low as $750, are now going for over $2,000. But the taxes haven't gone up that much, and the interest rates haven't. What's changed is that people have handed over their hard earned cash, and paid more for products, and services, and the law of supply and demand, as we all know from The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith keeps showing up.

There's only one thing Smith failed to address properly. Greed. When greed hits, regardless in which area of the cycle, it creates a cascade effect. Eventually, the only winners are those who control the empire through the power of supply, because people don't know how to back off from their own perceived wants. They pay the price, because they "want."
 
Back
Top